6 ms·

> “double-anonymity” or "double-blind" protocol: the site never sees the user’s identity, the verifier never learns which site is being visited, and only a yes/

> “double-anonymity” or "double-blind" protocol: the site never sees the user’s identity, the verifier never learns which site is being visited, and only a yes/no “18+” token is exchanged. Isn't this an actually reasonable solution? I assumed age verification was supposed to be done by the site itself, and therefore it was considered a very bad idea. But this... what's the problem with this method?

baby_souffle 1y ago
> But this... what's the problem with this method? You're just hoping that there's never a leak of any UUID(s) that could be used to correlate things. The ad-tech industry has pioneered de-anonymization tech and they're very, very good at it. Tangential question: if the principal is divorced from the "is not a minor" signal, what prevents a thrifty youth from just buying/stealing somebody's token?
- Sayrus 1y ago
  What prevents someone from buying, stealing or photoshopping an ID card? I'd guess the same issue would be present with selling tokens.
- sltkr 1y ago
  First, intentionally leaking this type of data is extremely illegal under Europe's strict privacy laws. So we are limited to unintentional breaches of privacy which can be guarded against with auditing requirements. Second, you have to look at the potential damage such a leak would have on the affected porn watchers. Is it really that damaging to your reputation if someone could prove that you visited Pornhub in the last year? Isn't it a common view that all men and most women watch porn at least occasionally anyway? And I get the risk if you live in a country that criminalizes pornography. But are were sure there is an extreme societal taboo on enjoying erotic cinema in the notoriously puritanical country of... checks notes France? Third, it's important to consider the baseline. If you are a citizen of France and you are accessing Pornhub via your residential ISP or your mobile phone, then your ISP already knows you are visiting Pornhub. This isn't concerning to anyone but the thickest thin-foil-hat wearing paranoid schizophrenics, and I've never heard of this leading to massive data breaches or blackmail situations either. Given that ISPs appear to be basically trustworthy, they might as well do the age verification thing, too. They probably already have your personal info due to KYC-legislation. Of course there are small differences: with age verification your ISP can distinguish between you and other people in your household, which removes a bit of plausible deniability. If you don't trust your ISP you can use alternate DNS-over-HTTPS, VPNs, proxys like Tor, etc. to cover your tracks, which you wouldn't be able to do anymore. But I bet 99,99% of Pornhub visitors in France don't bother with any of that, proving that they aren't actually concerned about being blackmailed or outed as porn consumers by their ISP.
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    > First, intentionally leaking this type of data is extremely illegal under Europe's strict privacy laws. So we are limited to unintentional breaches of privacy which can be guarded against with auditing requirements You already know this, I’m certain, but laws and “audits” do little more than nothing to meaningfully protect data.
    - sltkr 1y ago
      Where's your evidence for that claim? Personally I worked for a FAANG company that took data protection quite seriously. I would love to say that it was because they cared so much about their customer's privacy (which was of course the official position) but I think the reality was at least partially that the people in charge knew that if data was leaked and it could be pinned on lax internal policies, the company would be liable for millions if not billions in damages. From that I conclude that the legal framework does provide a certain degree of protection to customer data. Nothing is perfect, of course, but that's true for every law: a red traffic light doesn't force drivers to stop, and in fact people run red lights every day. But the threat of getting fined for running a red light is pretty effective at forcing most people to stop for a red light most of the time, which is not nothing. Also consider the logical conclusion of your cynical argument. If the laws and regulations that require companies to guard their customers privacy are almost entirely ineffective, as you claim, then shouldn't we abolish them? After all, they impose a burden on companies, which makes goods and services more expensive for consumers, without providing any non-material benefits in return.
      - LPisGood 1y ago
        > Personally I worked for a FAANG company that took data protection quite seriously Me too, and it’s still funny how often user data gets leaked even with world class engineers and incentives. Moving beyond FANG, look at how absurdly common it is for user data to get leaked - financial institutions, romance services, transportation services, everyone.
        1y ago
- lucianbr 1y ago
  > You're just hoping that there's never a leak of any UUID(s) that could be used to correlate things. No. For any technology you could argue I'm just hoping it won't fail. If I fly with a plane, I'm just hoping it won't crash, right? In fact, there would be security measures making it less likey that there is a leak. I am literally not "just hoping". Now those security measures might fail of course. But what are the probabilities? That matters. > The ad-tech industry has pioneered de-anonymization tech and they're very, very good at it. Please explain how this does not apply to opening pornhub on my computer right now, with zero age verification systems. I think it applies perfectly, and so it is not an actual argument in this discussion.
JCattheATM 1y ago
It depends how solid the implementation is, and what the competency reputation of the government implementing it is.
- lucianbr 1y ago
  Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Even if you don't, most rational people do, daily.
  - JCattheATM 1y ago
    > Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. If someone has an atrocious representation, we don't need to trust the system, if they don't then it becomes more reasonable to do so. > Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Not all risks are equal.
    - lucianbr 1y ago
      Is this trolling? > Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends". > Not all risks are equal. But you have claimed nothing about this particular risk. Is it big? Is it small? We have no idea. This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content. You are not arguing either for this tech, or against it, or providing any insight into how one might decide. Of course it depends on some things. Gee, how did we not think of that before you told us.
      - JCattheATM 1y ago
        > Is this trolling? Certainly not, although I wonder if this question is to any extent projection. > But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends". Which was sufficient to make the point I wanted to make. > This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content. It's not, so much as you not understanding a point, wanting to give it the second degree and when I didn't initially support the point to a level you personally found satisfactory, because there was no reasonable need for me to do so, dismissing the point entirely. You're not someone I see the potential to have a productive discussion with, so I'll let this be my last reply. Have a great day.

baby_souffle 1y ago

> But this... what's the problem with this method? You're just hoping that there's never a leak of any UUID(s) that could be used to correlate things. The ad-tech industry has pioneered de-anonymization tech and they're very, very good at it. Tangential question: if the principal is divorced from the "is not a minor" signal, what prevents a thrifty youth from just buying/stealing somebody's token?

Sayrus 1y ago
What prevents someone from buying, stealing or photoshopping an ID card? I'd guess the same issue would be present with selling tokens.
sltkr 1y ago
First, intentionally leaking this type of data is extremely illegal under Europe's strict privacy laws. So we are limited to unintentional breaches of privacy which can be guarded against with auditing requirements. Second, you have to look at the potential damage such a leak would have on the affected porn watchers. Is it really that damaging to your reputation if someone could prove that you visited Pornhub in the last year? Isn't it a common view that all men and most women watch porn at least occasionally anyway? And I get the risk if you live in a country that criminalizes pornography. But are were sure there is an extreme societal taboo on enjoying erotic cinema in the notoriously puritanical country of... checks notes France? Third, it's important to consider the baseline. If you are a citizen of France and you are accessing Pornhub via your residential ISP or your mobile phone, then your ISP already knows you are visiting Pornhub. This isn't concerning to anyone but the thickest thin-foil-hat wearing paranoid schizophrenics, and I've never heard of this leading to massive data breaches or blackmail situations either. Given that ISPs appear to be basically trustworthy, they might as well do the age verification thing, too. They probably already have your personal info due to KYC-legislation. Of course there are small differences: with age verification your ISP can distinguish between you and other people in your household, which removes a bit of plausible deniability. If you don't trust your ISP you can use alternate DNS-over-HTTPS, VPNs, proxys like Tor, etc. to cover your tracks, which you wouldn't be able to do anymore. But I bet 99,99% of Pornhub visitors in France don't bother with any of that, proving that they aren't actually concerned about being blackmailed or outed as porn consumers by their ISP.
- LPisGood 1y ago
  > First, intentionally leaking this type of data is extremely illegal under Europe's strict privacy laws. So we are limited to unintentional breaches of privacy which can be guarded against with auditing requirements You already know this, I’m certain, but laws and “audits” do little more than nothing to meaningfully protect data.
  - sltkr 1y ago
    Where's your evidence for that claim? Personally I worked for a FAANG company that took data protection quite seriously. I would love to say that it was because they cared so much about their customer's privacy (which was of course the official position) but I think the reality was at least partially that the people in charge knew that if data was leaked and it could be pinned on lax internal policies, the company would be liable for millions if not billions in damages. From that I conclude that the legal framework does provide a certain degree of protection to customer data. Nothing is perfect, of course, but that's true for every law: a red traffic light doesn't force drivers to stop, and in fact people run red lights every day. But the threat of getting fined for running a red light is pretty effective at forcing most people to stop for a red light most of the time, which is not nothing. Also consider the logical conclusion of your cynical argument. If the laws and regulations that require companies to guard their customers privacy are almost entirely ineffective, as you claim, then shouldn't we abolish them? After all, they impose a burden on companies, which makes goods and services more expensive for consumers, without providing any non-material benefits in return.
    - LPisGood 1y ago
      > Personally I worked for a FAANG company that took data protection quite seriously Me too, and it’s still funny how often user data gets leaked even with world class engineers and incentives. Moving beyond FANG, look at how absurdly common it is for user data to get leaked - financial institutions, romance services, transportation services, everyone.
      - 1y ago
lucianbr 1y ago
> You're just hoping that there's never a leak of any UUID(s) that could be used to correlate things. No. For any technology you could argue I'm just hoping it won't fail. If I fly with a plane, I'm just hoping it won't crash, right? In fact, there would be security measures making it less likey that there is a leak. I am literally not "just hoping". Now those security measures might fail of course. But what are the probabilities? That matters. > The ad-tech industry has pioneered de-anonymization tech and they're very, very good at it. Please explain how this does not apply to opening pornhub on my computer right now, with zero age verification systems. I think it applies perfectly, and so it is not an actual argument in this discussion.

JCattheATM 1y ago

It depends how solid the implementation is, and what the competency reputation of the government implementing it is.

lucianbr 1y ago
Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Even if you don't, most rational people do, daily.
- JCattheATM 1y ago
  > Well, we can't refuse a system or a technology on the basis of "depends". Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. If someone has an atrocious representation, we don't need to trust the system, if they don't then it becomes more reasonable to do so. > Your physical safety when traveling anywhere by any means depends on many factors. You still leave the house, don't you? Not all risks are equal.
  - lucianbr 1y ago
    Is this trolling? > Of course we can, based exactly on the dependencies. But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends". > Not all risks are equal. But you have claimed nothing about this particular risk. Is it big? Is it small? We have no idea. This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content. You are not arguing either for this tech, or against it, or providing any insight into how one might decide. Of course it depends on some things. Gee, how did we not think of that before you told us.
    - JCattheATM 1y ago
      > Is this trolling? Certainly not, although I wonder if this question is to any extent projection. > But you have provided zero exact dependencies or details. All you said was "depends". Which was sufficient to make the point I wanted to make. > This is sophistry. Fancy words attempting to sound smart with zero content. It's not, so much as you not understanding a point, wanting to give it the second degree and when I didn't initially support the point to a level you personally found satisfactory, because there was no reasonable need for me to do so, dismissing the point entirely. You're not someone I see the potential to have a productive discussion with, so I'll let this be my last reply. Have a great day.